The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

Boring human. Go read wikipedia. There's plenty of info on Freemasons. There's masonic lodges all over the place. You can even join them - and learn all the secret handshakes - isn't that fun And if you spend long enough and rise to grand master of the 3rd degree and all that other horseshit maybe they'll let you into the *inner circle* that makes all the decisions And holy fuck, you won't need to make forum threads about your terrible suspicions, which will be a great mercy on the rest of us and is probably why the society exists in the first place.

Hey, did you know that chickens have an average IQ well over 300? It's true, I saw it on a website. I researched it myself by watching a video that some guy made. It's all TRUE!

You don't believe it? That's because you don't think for yourselves. The greatest enemy to believing in super-genius 300 IQ chickens is your belief that such a thing is impossible, and the second greatest enemy is mocking the truth. All of you who don't believe chickens have 300 IQs are just too stupid to recognize truth when it pecks you in the face!

What? I don't need to offer you proof of 300 IQ chickens. I have no position, I need defend nothing. I merely revealed the truth to you and now you deny it and mock me but you don't offer any proof that I'm wrong. You're too stupid to look at the truth. With your closed minds, all you do is mock me and claim that my truth is impossible, making you the enemy of truth. Oh, how sad it is to see how deluded you all are and and to know how those 300 IQ chickens have fooled you all.

That about sums up Nappa's stance on every post he makes. He's either the biggest troll we have on these forums (and maybe the biggest, or certainly one of the biggest I've ever seen) or he's a hopelessly clueless paranoid delusional halfwit in desperate need of some serious time in the psych ward.

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

Hey, did you know that chickens have an average IQ well over 300? It's true, I saw it on a website. I researched it myself by watching a video that some guy made. It's all TRUE!

You don't believe it? That's because you don't think for yourselves. The greatest enemy to believing in super-genius 300 IQ chickens is your belief that such a thing is impossible, and the second greatest enemy is mocking the truth. All of you who don't believe chickens have 300 IQs are just too stupid to recognize truth when it pecks you in the face!

What? I don't need to offer you proof of 300 IQ chickens. I have no position, I need defend nothing. I merely revealed the truth to you and now you deny it and mock me but you don't offer any proof that I'm wrong. You're too stupid to look at the truth. With your closed minds, all you do is mock me and claim that my truth is impossible, making you the enemy of truth. Oh, how sad it is to see how deluded you all are and and to know how those 300 IQ chickens have fooled you all.

That about sums up Nappa's stance on every post he makes. He's either the biggest troll we have on these forums (and maybe the biggest, or certainly one of the biggest I've ever seen) or he's a hopelessly clueless paranoid delusional halfwit in desperate need of some serious time in the psych ward.

There have been bigger trolls. but lets not get into that.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.

Hey, did you know that chickens have an average IQ well over 300? It's true, I saw it on a website. I researched it myself by watching a video that some guy made. It's all TRUE!

You don't believe it? That's because you don't think for yourselves. The greatest enemy to believing in super-genius 300 IQ chickens is your belief that such a thing is impossible, and the second greatest enemy is mocking the truth. All of you who don't believe chickens have 300 IQs are just too stupid to recognize truth when it pecks you in the face!

What? I don't need to offer you proof of 300 IQ chickens. I have no position, I need defend nothing. I merely revealed the truth to you and now you deny it and mock me but you don't offer any proof that I'm wrong. You're too stupid to look at the truth. With your closed minds, all you do is mock me and claim that my truth is impossible, making you the enemy of truth. Oh, how sad it is to see how deluded you all are and and to know how those 300 IQ chickens have fooled you all.

That about sums up Nappa's stance on every post he makes. He's either the biggest troll we have on these forums (and maybe the biggest, or certainly one of the biggest I've ever seen) or he's a hopelessly clueless paranoid delusional halfwit in desperate need of some serious time in the psych ward.

I'm sorry if I don't ask evidence for everything you post. In my world I've always tried to support my opponents argument and then mine. I'm sorry if you're unused to this method, but it's the only way to be unbiased.

See I've made the mistake in the past of providing you with your opponents argument, and you shall never believe your enemy over your most trusted ally. That is why you must be your own opponent. And if I decide not to quarrel with you because it would only lead to futility, then that is my decision. And if you do wish to to quarrel with me, then I ask you to bring the evidence for my side first, and only after may you present the evidence for your side.

A critical thinker ALWAYS challenges himself, a critical thinker's only opponent IS himself. That is why I can not bring the evidence forward to you. Not because there is a lack of such, but because only you can defeat yourself. You are your own enemy, not me, and as such I do not have to bring forward your evidence. All I can do is guide you.

(21-01-2013 04:31 AM)Nappa Wrote: Freemasons have had a profound influence on our society. For both maybe good and bad things. There are certainly good things, but I will not say there are not bad things.

Whatever. Chas wants to know what profound influence you think masons have had on our society. I have my own opinion so I could not care less.

(21-01-2013 04:31 AM)Nappa Wrote: Freemasons might be behind the entire ideal of rehabilitation, while I do believe it to be a noble cause, I also believe the end result is simply utter failure.

What do you mean by "the entire ideal of rehabilitation"? What "rehabilitation" do you refer to? I don't know what that means.

No, masons do not and have never given certain "hints" to anything. This notion is completely preposterous. I can tell you with no doubt whatsoever that masons absolutely do not tell anyone anything about their activities and/or actions and/or intent thereof. In fact, they vow secrecy and hold secrecy to be their second greatest law kept. Their greatest law is not a secret at all: deistic belief. They take their laws quite seriously and do indeed live by them. Masonry is an esoteric society which shares a belief in a supreme being, moral uprightness, and charity. Their rituals, symbolism, and member recognition are their few "secrets" you seem so interested in. They utilize symbolism in their rituals (performed skits) to teach and learn moral and ethical lessons of the principles of brotherly love, relief, and truth. Nothing more.

(21-01-2013 04:31 AM)Nappa Wrote: I'm not a big movie watcher. But then again if you're to STUPID to understand and solve these hints and riddles. Then it's not they're fault. It's very kind and considerate of them to leave behind clues. Very kind, very considerate, and certainly very NOBLE of them.

I won't address that drivel other than to state; people who make shit up like that are fools but not nearly as foolish as people who believe it.

(21-01-2013 04:31 AM)Nappa Wrote: I do not know much about them. In fact it was just until recently that I thought they were myths and didn't exist. Oh how wrong a man can be.

That is the only truthful thing you have written here.
***
The only way to know about the masons is to join them.
The only way to join the masons is to ask a mason.
Simple as that.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein

Hey, did you know that chickens have an average IQ well over 300? It's true, I saw it on a website. I researched it myself by watching a video that some guy made. It's all TRUE!

You don't believe it? That's because you don't think for yourselves. The greatest enemy to believing in super-genius 300 IQ chickens is your belief that such a thing is impossible, and the second greatest enemy is mocking the truth. All of you who don't believe chickens have 300 IQs are just too stupid to recognize truth when it pecks you in the face!

What? I don't need to offer you proof of 300 IQ chickens. I have no position, I need defend nothing. I merely revealed the truth to you and now you deny it and mock me but you don't offer any proof that I'm wrong. You're too stupid to look at the truth. With your closed minds, all you do is mock me and claim that my truth is impossible, making you the enemy of truth. Oh, how sad it is to see how deluded you all are and and to know how those 300 IQ chickens have fooled you all.

That about sums up Nappa's stance on every post he makes. He's either the biggest troll we have on these forums (and maybe the biggest, or certainly one of the biggest I've ever seen) or he's a hopelessly clueless paranoid delusional halfwit in desperate need of some serious time in the psych ward.

I'm sorry if I don't ask evidence for everything you post. In my world I've always tried to support my opponents argument and then mine. I'm sorry if you're unused to this method, but it's the only way to be unbiased.

See I've made the mistake in the past of providing you with your opponents argument, and you shall never believe your enemy over your most trusted ally. That is why you must be your own opponent. And if I decide not to quarrel with you because it would only lead to futility, then that is my decision. And if you do wish to to quarrel with me, then I ask you to bring the evidence for my side first, and only after may you present the evidence for your side.

A critical thinker ALWAYS challenges himself, a critical thinker's only opponent IS himself. That is why I can not bring the evidence forward to you. Not because there is a lack of such, but because only you can defeat yourself. You are your own enemy, not me, and as such I do not have to bring forward your evidence. All I can do is guide you.

So wait, if I say 2+2=5 and you want to argue with that, you would support my argument and defend the fact that 2+2=5? And if I then wanted to argue with your argument (although I don't know why I would since you're agreeing with me), I would have to guess what you really wanted to argue (hey, since you're saying 2+2=5 how am I supposed to know you really want to argue that 2+2=4 when you're not saying that?). Assuming I guess what your real argument is, I then have to prove that I'm right by arguing your point?

And if all that fails, you just won't debate the issue because I'm not supporting your argument?

And because a critical thinker always challenges himself that is why you "cannot" bring evidence to support your own claim?

Did I read that right? Are you insane?

"Whores perform the same function as priests, but far more thoroughly." - Robert A. Heinlein

I'm sorry if I don't ask evidence for everything you post. In my world I've always tried to support my opponents argument and then mine. I'm sorry if you're unused to this method, but it's the only way to be unbiased.
See I've made the mistake in the past of providing you with your opponents argument, and you shall never believe your enemy over your most trusted ally. That is why you must be your own opponent.

No, you must be our own self-critic. This is simply empty rhetoric. You are substituting the need to back up your own claims with solid evidence by calling for a revising of the other side's perspective on the issue. But maybe the issue is that we hold different standards for evidence? If so, then your argument cuts both ways. Eliminate your restrictive barriers and open up your mind to my perspective and I will do the same with yours.

Does that sound appealing? It shouldn't, because it doesn't go anywhere. If the issue is that one side isn't presenting a solid case, playing musical chairs isn't going to fix that. Funny you backpedaled to this though. You were originally taking a flat-out polemical approach, now you seem to have switched to a thinly veiled burden-of-proof shifting game under the disguise of mutual exchange of perspectives.

Or maybe I've got it all wrong. After all, your methodology outlined here would more likely than not lead to strawmen rather than accurate views of the other side's perspective.

Quote:And if I decide not to quarrel with you because it would only lead to futility, then that is my decision. And if you do wish to to quarrel with me, then I ask you to bring the evidence for my side first, and only after may you present the evidence for your side.

Perhaps this issue isn't that we aren't playing by your rules but that you just aren't willing to back up your claims with solid evidence?

Quote:A critical thinker ALWAYS challenges himself, a critical thinker's only opponent IS himself. That is why I can not bring the evidence forward to you. Not because there is a lack of such, but because only you can defeat yourself. You are your own enemy, not me, and as such I do not have to bring forward your evidence. All I can do is guide you.

A critical thinker's opponent is flawed arguments, and another opponent is people who cover up their flawed arguments with red herrings and burden of proof shifting.

The irony is that despite your explanations for your methodology of debating, you seem to rely on confirmation bias quite a bit. Perhaps this whole divulgence you went off on was nothing more than a projection of your own confirmation bias as being based within external entities, and that they, not you, are the ones stalling the debate.